ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


MO: Halloween has local police strictly enforcing sex offender compliance

[ – 10/21/19]

Halloween is right around the corner, and local law enforcement are making sure the hundreds of sex offenders in Jasper County are following the law.

The Jasper County Sheriff’s Office already keeps a close eye on registered sex offenders and Halloween is no different. They have already started to reach out to offenders to make sure their in compliance with the law, which includes ensuring they are on the sex offender registry and posting the proper signage on their home on Halloween.

“Nowadays, you never know what you’re going to get,” explained Joplin parent LauRae Howard. “You never know what’s going to be on the other side of the door when you knock.”

With Halloween just a few days away, local law enforcement is taking the time to ensure all local sex offenders are in compliance with the law. In Missouri, offenders must turn off all lights at ther home at 5 p.m. on Halloween night.

“That they must be at their residence between the hours of 5 pm to 10:30 pm,” Jasper County Detective Roy Masters explained. “They must have a sign that’s posted that says “No candy or treats at this residence.’”

And even with those laws in place, the Jasper County Sheriff’s Office goes the extra mile to follow through that those rules are being followed.

“We send out letters to all of our offenders that remind them, we even include a sign in the letter so they don’t even have to make a sign up to put out — we’ve supplied one for them,” Masters added. “We even request that they let us know if they’re going to be working during that time so they can save a little bit of time and energy when we go to try and verify and do compliance checks.”

Read more


Join the discussion

  1. LS

    Oh My God. Its just SO over the top. All the time and energy spent on an issue that has proven needs NO time and energy spent on it. I think a bill should be introduced to Congress that would simply abolish Halloween altogether. There, problem solved (for the entire US) PERMANENTLY.

    • Facts should matter

      I’m all for banning Halloween. Especially after the cops have hijacked it and re-purposed it into a fear-driven “public safety” PR campaign

      Those that benefit exclusively from Halloween:

      1. Candy companie$
      2. COP$
      3. Denti$ts

  2. Will Allen

    So pathetic. The people who support this nonsense are just such a bunch of flaming idiots. What a disgrace. Could the U.S. look any more idiotic these days? And of course this is very far from our only area of idiocy. I still remember when we tried to move to the much more intelligent metric system but we were all too stupid to manage that. The entire rest of the civilized world uses it. Amerika is “exceptional”, all right. Exceptionally stupid and bottom of the barrel in so many ways. Leading the way with “$EX offender” stupidity.

    Anyway, I don’t have the time or inclination right now to do much research on Missouri’s Halloween “law” but it does seem like it affects only all Registered People who were convicted after the “law” was enacted (8/28/2018). I did see that numerous money-grubbing law firms stated that and also a news article from last year that seemed well researched and said:

    In 2008, Missouri was one of the very few states to pass blanket Halloween restrictions, requiring all registered sex offenders to maintain an evening curfew with porch lights turned off and a sign attached to the front door saying, “No candy or treats at this residence.”

    Two years later, the Missouri Supreme Court lifted those restrictions for offenders convicted prior to Aug. 28, 2008, the effective date of the statute.


    IF that is the case, and I believe it is, then this particular news article is super dangerous because they have led their brilliant readers who would pay attention to this drivel to believe that ALL “$EX offenders” are being controlled on Halloween and the world is safe. But only SOME “$EX offenders” are being controlled so obviously there is still extreme danger that the law enforcement criminals (LECs) are not able to effectively control. That is a HUGE public safety fail. Wow. Children will certainly be attacked and molested all over the state! Only the children of criminally negligent, terrible parents, of course. But never mind that. Nanny Big Government doesn’t care about that. They care about PR stunts, safety theater, and above all, growing bigger.

    Buuuuuuttttt …. Missouri’s state LECs say that this “law” does apply to ALL Registered People ( I think that they are just failing and making a mistake, but maybe not. Or perhaps it is an intentional mistake. It would hardly be the first time that LECs have intentionally misled the public.

    But take just a casual glance at that web page if you want to see just what a giant pile of stupid their Registries have been. What a great display of what a bunch of morons those people in Missouri are!! What a waste and public safety fail. I’m sure they are following in the footsteps of their completely and totally failed War on Drugs though. Actual results and reality will never matter much and they will do stupid forever.

    Personally, I expect that I’ll never help law enforcement in any way again. I will work hard to ensure they are dysfunctional and ineffective. At least tens of millions of people are doing the same thing. That has mattered and will continue to matter. Wage war. THAT is what the Registries are doing.

    • AJ

      Interesting that MO SC said retroactive application of the law was a no-no. That appears to mean either 1) MO doesn’t allow retroactive civil laws, or 2) it’s viewed as punishment. Either way, it would seem to play in our favor. Perhaps that case should be exhumed and see if there’s anything MO RCs can use from it.

      • Richard

        This I think explains how they get away with it. (Missouri’s constitutional ban on laws retrospective in their operation does not
        apply to crimes and punishments.) I would like your thoughts on this!$FILE/SC91368_State_of_Missouri_reply_brief.pdf

        • AJ

          I was having a devil of a time making heads or tails of the doc you sent me and the cited case, ex parte Berthrum (1877). After much hair-pulling (something I can ill afford), I stumbled upon a legal paper that explains it all quite well and relies on the RC laws to make its points. I highly recommend reading, “Civil or Criminal?: Deciding Whether a Law may be Applied Retrospectively yet Constitutionally in Missouri. State v. Wade” (

          In short, the way MO gets away with the Halloween signs is by making it a criminal law that applies only to a certain set of civilly-regulated citizens (read: RCs). This isn’t something particular to RCs. In the eyes and function of the law, it’s no different than making a group of lawyers or doctors (both civilly-regulated citizens) subject to certain criminal offenses. One needs to be within the defined group of regulated citizens before the crime can occur or apply.
          (The big difference, of course, is a lawyer or doctor can opt-out of being a lawyer or doctor, and thus be free of the criminal threat; not so RCs.)

          So essentially MO does this: 1. convicts for a criminal sex offense; 2. requires those convicted of sex offenses to be civilly regulated; 3. subject those civilly-regulated citizens to be subject to certain criminal laws. Nice trick, eh? As long as they flip-flop back and forth between civil and criminal, they can dodge the whole retroactive/ex post facto problem. You see, in MO retroactive only applies civil-to-civil, and ex post facto only applies criminal-to-criminal. So applying a civil law (registration) based on a criminal one (sex offense) is kosher, as is applying a criminal law (Halloween prohibition) based on a civil law (registration).

          I hope this helps with understanding it. How to attack it is a whole other question. Given how MO has enacted the various laws, it would seem one would either need to show registration to be punitive in effect (a HUGE task and win), or show that the law unconstitutionally makes protected activities a crime (an easier task). To do the latter, I believe one could argue First Amendment violations of freedoms of Assembly (can’t meet with others by handing out candy or leaving the house) and Speech (compelled to speak Gov’t message via sign; prohibited from speaking via lights and candy); Fifth Amendment violation of Freedom of Travel (can’t go outside, i.e. deprivation of “liberty”) and Due Process (deprived of liberty); and Fourteenth Amendment violations as it incorporates the First and Fifth to apply to the States.

          Of all of the arguments, I believe, just as in GA, the compelled speech one is the easiest to attack and win–especially given that the Roberts Court is commonly viewed as being First-Amendment (and with Gorsuch, God bless him, a bit more Fourth-Amendment) oriented.

  3. C

    “…we even include a sign in the letter so they don’t even have to make a sign up to put out — we’ve supplied one for them,”

    Oh, how fucking thoughtful.
    I got your sign “right here,” ya ignorant, money wasting, life destroying, fear mongering Stazi asshole (and I mean this in the nicest possible way): Fuuuuuuck youuuuu!

    Shit, why don’t you include a suicide while your at it. “We even include a noose, a revolver loaded with a single bullet, plus a box of extra sharp razor blades so that when the public humiliation becomes completely unbearable, they have the convenience choice when deciding how to free themselves of the ungodly, soul crushing pain.”

  4. AJ

    What, the rest of the year they do NOT strictly enforce RC laws? Riiigght… I think what they article meant to say was at this time of year, they make a dog-and-pony show out of their enforcement hijinks.

  5. bob jones

    Totally ILLEGAL against the constitution… some RSO’s should SUE as the pig department can NOT compel speech nor FORCE anyone not on paper to be LOCKED DOWN in their residence !! Its called imprisonment !!

    • Facts should matter

      Of course the SOR is false imprisonment and involuntary detention under duress. We’re witch hunted because the media, cops and lawmakers have brainwashed and reprogrammed public opinion making us all out to be irreparably broken with no spare parts to fix, when in reality, THEY”RE the actual monsters they claim we are. We’re set up to fail and then shamed and marginalized when we don’t re-offend. Then they set back and claim, “You see, these proactive Halloween compliance checks are working!”

      They’re basically taking credit for the sun coming up.

      What a sick and twisted vortex of flawed logic!

  6. 290 air

    So if all your lights have to be off and they knock on the door to do a compliance check couldn’t you not answer and use the excuse that you couldn’t find the door with the lights off?

    • R M

      “In Missouri, offenders must turn off all lights at ther home at 5 p.m. on Halloween night.”

      If that is truly the case (I think it’s not true), then yes… (assuming no curfew, no having to be at home, ect). Even then there are many other reasons why a person doesn’t hear a knock at the door.

      • Will Allen

        You should read the link I provided for their state police. Or you can easily find their law. It says that all Registered People must be at home, unless there is some “just” reason (believe that was the word), like work.

        The problem for this criminal regime is that their law says that RPs must be at home but it doesn’t say a damn thing that anyone has to prove that they are. So literally no one should answer their door. And again, all RPs should have their homes surrounded by walls and keep the law enforcement criminals out. Never speak to them.

        That is how it should go down but we all know that most RPs are weak and very eager to please oppressors. So it continues.

        • Will Allen

          I had some more time this morning to look at this nonsense. What a giant pile of stupid. I feel like just reading their stupidity has killed too much of my brain. This Halloween nonsense truly is just for stupid people. And as sort of an aside, I posted the link to Missouri’s criminal state police “fact sheet” above so people can look at that and get a small feeling for just the insane amount of time, money, and other resources that these Registry idiots have wasted through the years trying to polish up their pile of excrement. They should all be imprisoned for being stupid.

          Anyway, Missouri’s “law” is at and it says:

          589.426. Halloween, restrictions on conduct — violations, penalty. — 1. Any person required to register as a sexual offender under sections 589.400 to 589.425 shall be required on October thirty-first of each year to:

          (1) Avoid all Halloween-related contact with children;

          (2) Remain inside his or her residence between the hours of 5 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. unless required to be elsewhere for just cause, including but not limited to employment or medical emergencies;

          (3) Post a sign at his or her residence stating, “No candy or treats at this residence”; and

          (4) Leave all outside residential lighting off during the evening hours after 5 p.m.

          2. Any person required to register as a sexual offender under sections 589.400 to 589.425 who violates the provisions of subsection 1 of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

          I have seen piles of evidence that the “law” was ruled illegal to apply to people convicted before it was enacted (8/28/2008). The case is

          So why does the “law” still read as it does? The criminal regimes should be FORCED to mark the “law” with a big red “INVALID” completely across it EVERYWHERE (especially online) until and unless they change or annotate the law such that it is clear to whom it applies. The criminal regimes should be forced to do that. Or is this how we want our governments to run? Where an average citizen is literally not able to read “laws”?

          To make matters worse, the “fact sheet” from their law enforcement criminals (LECs) ( says that the law applies to all Registered People. If this “law” applied to me, I’d certainly ask the criminals why they don’t correct that. I think they don’t correct it so they can intentionally try to mislead people. However though, I will note that I saw numerous places that said that the Supreme Court ruling against the “law” covered only the one person in the lawsuit. So is that how/why they justify misleading the public?

          The “law” is insane regardless. Apparently Missouri is saying that if you are convicted of a $EX crime today, that for the rest of your life you must be at home on 10/31 of every year (there was a LEC agency there that arrested a guy who was traveling in Arkansas on that date!). So is a person on probation/parole for life in Missouri? Must be. If not and probation/parole ends, how exactly does this law continue as a “civil” application? Guess it just does. Ridiculous.

          I expect most RPs will just lie down and accept this nonsense. But RPs who care should notice the “law” was written by an idiot. In particular, I’m certain than an RP could put a wall around their entire property and never respond to the LECs there on Halloween. And that sign could be posted anywhere “at his or her residence”. That surely includes inside the house in a bedroom. That shouldn’t matter though because with a wall, the LECs could never see enough to tell.

          No actual American supports this wasteful stupidity. We all know what they deserve.

        • AJ

          “It says that all Registered People must be at home, unless there is some “just” reason (believe that was the word), like work.”
          This sure sounds like “house arrest”, which is along the punishment continuum. It’s also contrary to SCOTUS in Smith where it said RCs, “are free to move where they wish and to live and work as other citizens, with no supervision.”

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *